Jump to content

smallspy

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    9,799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto, Ont.

Recent Profile Visitors

16,831 profile views
  1. I've spent many hours by the trench - I'm well aware of the acoustics there. And as I wrote, the trains passing through are not vastly louder than the surrounding traffic, if at all. A friend of mine lives on Forward, and you'd be very hard pressed to be able to hear an LRT pass from his place. Dan
  2. Conversely, it also begs the question about whether they are now being lenient in order to try and pump up the metrics. And unfortunately in the absence of any actual data, we're all left wondering. Dan
  3. No, they're not. Even within the echo chamber of St. Laurent station, it's not loud. To be honest, I'm surprised that someone along Scott St. would hear one over all of the other ambient noises in the neighbourhood. Dan
  4. That's only because they've changed the metrics, and some things that were originally considered "failures" are no longer counted. Dan
  5. It would appear that it was indeed for the service changes. https://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2019/08/ontario-announces-more-rush-hour-midday-and-evening-service.html https://www.gotransit.com/en/trip-planning/go-service-updates/train-schedule-changes Dan
  6. It's pretty amazing to me how long these rumours manage to persist. I can't count on all of my hands and feet how many times myself or any one of a number of people who actually know about these things have had to tell people this calendar year that there is no issue with running CLRVs at the museum, and that their substation and overhead is capable of dealing with them. So yeah, despite it being 10 long years, it still happens to be around. And I bet you that it will come up again on this forum, nevermind anywhere else, before the end of the year. Humans are silly, aren't they? Dan
  7. That's an old rumour that has been thoroughly debunked. The substation design, apparently, is one-way only and doesn't lend itself to allowing the cars to regenerate power back to it very easily. That part is true. But will it blow up? No. The CLRVs are designed so that if the overhead is not receptive to regenerative that they automatically flip over to rheostatic braking. Not only that but the regenerative (and rheostatic) braking can be cut out entirely via the breaker panel on the front dash if it's a really big concern. It should be noted that despite the fact that people may volunteer at HCRY, they aren't necessarily involved in either the day-to-day operations nor the high-level discussions that involve things like the museum fleet. There are only 3 or 4 people there who do those things. I suspect that you didn't talk to any of them, and thus the confusion. Dan
  8. Considering that there are still a couple hundred more of the things still to arrive, it stands to reason. Dan
  9. They are almost certainly waiting until the last car is on the line before running 4401 through the process. Whether 4603 will be that car or not remains to be seen. Dan
  10. Like I said, it's a bit Kafkaesque. If nothing else, I think we're in agreement on this. There was a rather unfortunate incident several months ago where a woman was run over by a bus, and the driver - employed by GO - charged with careless driving as a result. I won't pretend to know all of the details, because frankly I don't, but what you saw going on at the terminal is a very direct result of that incident. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/elderly-pedestrian-struck-hamilton-go-1.5050252 https://globalnews.ca/news/5085234/bus-driver-charged-after-pedestrian-struck-and-killed-at-hamilton-go-centre/ If this is going to be their response to this kind of incident, than I think if nothing else the public is owed the slightest bit of explanation as to why they are spending this kind of money. Dan
  11. Buses or trains, it's irrelevant. GO's mandate is the GTHA and nothing more. Like I said, should their mandate change, than places further afield can be looked at. But is it a commuter market? No, it's not. The fact of the matter is that with very, very, very few exceptions (hint: that exception is Niagara Falls, and there's all sorts of other behind-the-scenes things that go on to enable that) GO is not meant to target the leisure market. So what? Greyhound also has legislation that enables it to do that run. GO does not. You make it sound like they're really going to have a say in the matter if it comes up. The fact of the matter is that they don't. Grey Coach didn't want to give up the Hamilton run, but the Province took it away from them and gave it to GO in 1971. No reason why they couldn't do it again if they really felt so inclined. Your posts make sense. It's the ideas that are rambling and nonsensical. It's a bit Kafkaesque, but the description - "Revenue Protection" - isn't entirely incorrect. Their job is to ensure that people pay their fares, and if they don't to issue them a ticket for the pleasure. They're protecting the interests of their bosses. I think that the change happened this past April. Dan
  12. No. There is no such concern. Right now, GO Transit's raison-d'ĂȘtre is to service Toronto and the surrounding GTHA. Brantford fits into that, just barely, by virtue of providing into the commutershed of Hamilton. There is no such justification for service to London. Should GO's mandate change, than sure, maybe at that point they could start to think about providing service to London. There have no confirmation of any cuts to services yet. Dan
  13. So long as both locos are on-line and connected by MU, both will produce about an equal amount of power to propel the train. No. Dan
  14. A friend was up by the plant 2 weeks ago, and 4401 was in that exact same location, and with the same decals and paperwork still applied. I don't believe that it has moved since it was delivered there a number of months ago. Dan
  15. That's correct. And with a minimum radius of about 36 feet on the Toronto system, and the overhang on curves of that tightness, that means that the drawbars need to be a pretty good length to prevent contact. The couplers were fixed to a structural bulkhead underneath the floor of the cars - the forward edge of the steps are also braced off of the front one - but their pivot point was about 9 inches forward of their mounting location. Still well under the front and back ends of the cars. Dan
×
×
  • Create New...